Senatory Ben Cardin and NAACP local leader Dot Scott (Charleston) have proposed a national ban on racial profiling, that would ban police from considering race "TO ANY DEGREE" when investigating a crime or making a stop. Meaning.....race cannot be mentioned, considered or relied on, "to any degree", by cops. The law would also open up INDIVIDUAL officers to lawsuits should they use race, "to any degree", in law enforcement.

Meaning....say a store is robbed by a white male with dreadlocks (we've seen them). And a caller tells dispatch a white kid with dreadlocks robbed a store. And a cop sees a white kid with dreadlocks walking amongst a group of 10 black males with dreadlocks. The cop would have to stop all 11 men, and interview all of them, as he could not consider the "white" factor, "to any degree".

What sparked this? In North Charleston, SC, which was ranked as the 6th most dangerous city in America as recently as 2006, a cop was dispatched to a predominantly black neighborhood because a large group of males were shooting at each other.

The BLACK 911 caller said a black male with "dreadlocks" was the shooter. Cops stopped several groups of black male teens in the area. One officer saw a "black male with dreadlocks" in the immediate area, and the subject turned and began to run from him. "Reasonable suspicion"?? I think so. So the cop chases him. The teen turns around and points a gun at the cop, and the cop shoots him (wounded not killed). The mom and local NAACP, and a lawyer of course, claim the kid had no gun..........even though NCPD recovered the gun next to the kid. The family called him a "choir boy", literally, and said that the gun must have been planted because their baby didn't own a gun. Then, a facebook photo shows the kid pointing a gun, the same gun the cops recovered, at the camera. Ooops.

So logically, the next step is the family and NAACP say the cop PROFILED their son, because he has "braids", not "dreadlocks" like the original caller reported. Nevermind the fact their "choir boy" saw a cop, ran from him, turned and pointed a gun at him. Nope. They feel their baby was profiled because the cops were looking for a "black male with dreadlocks with a gun" and their baby was a "black male with BRAIDS.....and a gun" so it must have been racist.

Anyway, if this bill passes, good luck to everyone, because cops will basically quit policing. And I dont blame 'em.

Oh, by the way, in the original article, the 911 caller, a black man, said he thinks the cops are in the right, that he is horrified at all the black kids selling drugs and carrying guns, and that he feels the cops do not harrass anyone but rather just respond to known crime. Oh well, what does he know about race...being an innocent black man living amongst the inner city chaos, right?

In 2007, North Charleston hired Police Chief Jon Zumalt. His job was to change the city's designation as "6th Most Dangerous City" in US. Among his first actions was to reach out to the Charleston NAACP, led by the above mentioned Dot Scott. Seeing as over 90% of N. CHars violent crime was in all black neighborhoods, it made sense.

So....6 years later...after "saturation patrols" in the most crime ridden neighborhoods, North Charleston is not statistically the 3rd or 4th "most dangerous" city.......in the state, behind Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Charleston, etc.

When there is surveillance cameras in use, a description of a perpetrator is never given. Not to any degree. The film is shown "asking for the public's help" capturing the criminal. The CAMERAS are racist. Facial recognition technology is racist. If the film shows, clearly shows, that the guy robbing the 7-11 is black, that film is racist because possible white perpetrators are automatically not considered.

One of our very first thoughts, upon learning that Facial Recognition image processing was actually being deployed on the streets of London, in the Borough of Newham, was that if the system had any success at all in picking out individual faces from a crowd, then it would not be difficult to use such a system to racially classify people by skin colour.

When there is surveillance cameras in use, a description of a perpetrator is never given. Not to any degree. The film is shown "asking for the public's help" capturing the criminal. The CAMERAS are racist. Facial recognition technology is racist. If the film shows, clearly shows, that the guy robbing the 7-11 is black, that film is racist because possible white perpetrators are automatically not considered.

One of our very first thoughts, upon learning that Facial Recognition image processing was actually being deployed on the streets of London, in the Borough of Newham, was that if the system had any success at all in picking out individual faces from a crowd, then it would not be difficult to use such a system to racially classify people by skin colour.

Click to expand...

Cameras are one thing. This pertains to the "in progress" crime. So when a caller calls and says "A black guy with a gun wearing blue jeans and a light shirt" just robbed her, cops responding can only look for "man with a gun wearing blue jeans and a light shirt", even if it happened as a local Klu Klux Klan rally and there is only 1 black guy within miles....they can't stop that 1 guy if race is a factor "to any degree". (BTW, I think it would be AWESOME if someone, of any race, robbed a KKK rally, those scumbags deserve it).

The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents &#8220;relying, to any degree, on race ... in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities,&#8221; such as traffic stops or interviews.

Click to expand...

Your case scenario:

Meaning....say a store is robbed by a white male with dreadlocks (we've seen them). And a caller tells dispatch a white kid with dreadlocks robbed a store. And a cop sees a white kid with dreadlocks walking amongst a group of 10 black males with dreadlocks. The cop would have to stop all 11 men, and interview all of them, as he could not consider the "white" factor, "to any degree".

Click to expand...

Since the store owner gave specific details about the perp, i.e., white male, dreadlocks...then the officer has EVERY right to seek out white males with dreadlocks in the immediate vicinity of the crime. This would not be considered a spontaneous nor investigatory activity.

The legislation, Senate Bill 1670, defines racial profiling as law enforcement agents relying, to any degree, on race ... in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities, such as traffic stops or interviews.

Click to expand...

Your case scenario:

Meaning....say a store is robbed by a white male with dreadlocks (we've seen them). And a caller tells dispatch a white kid with dreadlocks robbed a store. And a cop sees a white kid with dreadlocks walking amongst a group of 10 black males with dreadlocks. The cop would have to stop all 11 men, and interview all of them, as he could not consider the "white" factor, "to any degree".

Click to expand...

Since the store owner gave specific details about the perp, i.e., white male, dreadlocks...then the officer has EVERY right to seek out white males with dreadlocks in the immediate vicinity of the crime. This would not be considered a spontaneous nor investigatory activity.

Click to expand...

WRONG.

The initial incident which sparked this law was the one in N Char I described, where a BLACK caller did give a specific description. Dott Scott and the family still dont buy it.

It would be considered an "investigatory" activity, as stopping anyone who is "suspected of possibly having been involved in a crime" is covered under the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which laid the basis for reasonable suspicion "Terry Stops" by law enforcement, also called "investigative detention".

Thus, an "investigatory" stop would include responding to a call in which a crime was reported. And that cop could not consider race "to any degree" under this law. And, if the law is applied correctly, the police dispatchers would likely have to exclude race in the on-air dispatch to street officers, meaning the cop would only be told "male" in stead of "white male" with dreadlocks.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!